Buckmark vs. Mark III

This is a discussion on Buckmark vs. Mark III within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I've been contemplating a .22 pistol purchase since falling in love with my .22 Remington 597 (yeah, I said it!). However, I can't make up ...

Buckmark vs. Mark III

I've been contemplating a .22 pistol purchase since falling in love with my .22 Remington 597 (yeah, I said it!). However, I can't make up my mind between Browning's Buckmark and the Mark III. My intended use for the gun is mostly plinking, occasionally dispatching pests, and actually carrying as a hiking companion.

The only fault I can find with either is that the Browning requires tools to break down for cleaning. Any thoughts one way or the other on which pistol I should get? I'll probably steer clear of the 7" barrels since I'll hike with it.

I got my first gen Buckmark in '85, and it's a gem. If I only had one chance to make a shot with a handgun, the Buckmark would come out of the safe. It points beautifully, and has run flawlessly. I've shot a lot of Rugers, but own a Browning

Both guns have a good rep, so I think you would get a winner with either. I purchased a Buckmark in 90' and have used it alot. Originally I shot smallbore competition with the gun , later using it for plinking and hunting.
The only real downfall of the Buckmark is you need to check the topstrap screws once in a while as they loosen up on their own and require tightening.

I own a Ruger 22/45 MkIII and a Buckmark, both with 5.5" bull barrels. My Ruger is stainless, my Buckmark is black. I bought the Ruger first, because nearly everyone in my entire extended family has Ruger 22's, mostly 22/45 Mark II's and Single 6's. I'm literally the only one out of dozens of uncles and cousins that owns a .22 handgun that isn't a Ruger. My friends all have Ruger .22's as well, in fact I can't think of anyone I know that owns anything but a Ruger, so buying anything else never really entered my mind.

I like my 22/45 MkIII, but I prefer the 22/45 MkII's that my family has, mostly because of the grip texture, althogh I'm not a fan of the loaded chamber indicator on it. The mag safety isn't a negative, in my opinion. It shoots well, and it's accurate and reliable. My friend's Mark II's and Mark III's feel and shoot the same for me.

I bought my Buckmark from a friend who won it at as a door prize, but didn't feel the need for a handgun in his house. I prefer the Buckmark over the Ruger, mostly because the grip feels better to me. It has the simplest grips you can get, black plastic with a thumb groove on each side, but the width feels better. It is also accurate and reliable, just like my Ruger.

Although the Ruger can be taken apart without tools, I find them both equally easy (or equally difficult) to break down. The barrel is not removable on the 22/45, so I like the fact that I can remove the barrel on the Buckmark.

The only downside I've found to the Buckmark is the cost of magazines, which are roughly 50% more expensive and much more difficult to find. Add to that the fact that the Buckmark comes with only one magazine, while the Ruger comes with two, and for me to have 5 mags for each cost almost exactly twice as much for the Buckmark.